WR Wonderlic Scores

[Brainiac21]

they're probably right... not sure it has relevance in learning a playbook. maybe for a QB.

 

it doesn't seem to have much effect on decision making either. many low-scorers haven't got into a lick of trouble.. Gore... McKelvin... while guys who did a little better like Marshawn and Maurice Clarett were train wrecks.

 

those interviews must count 100x more than that test... at least.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Brainiac21

[DC Tom]

Yea, anything even bordering on single digits amounts to filling random bubbles on the sheet.

 

Sadly, those are not uncommon scores.

 

"For the third time, the POINTY END is for writing. The red, chewy end is for 'un-writing'!"

[Ramius]

The wonderlic tells nothing more or less than a player's ability to take the wonderlic. Attempting to relate it to anything in the real world is the definition of stupidity.

[NoSaint]

The wonderlic tells nothing more or less than a player's ability to take the wonderlic. Attempting to relate it to anything in the real world is the definition of stupidity.

 

They say it standardizes to iq atleast decently. 20 equates to about 100 iq with basic deviations off that. A dumb guy can be a genius on the field, some guys blow it off but all things equal (which never exists) higher iq is probably generally better

[BillsBytheBay]

I have taken the wonderlic. I took it for a job, and scored rather well. This test doesn't test literacy. Trust me. Its more like a resoning and association test.

[KOKBILLS]

Some guys did terrible. My favorite Robert Woods looks good. According to the score, Tavon Austin is illiterate. These scores probably don't mean as much for WRs as it does for QBs but its still fun to see how these guys do.

 

 

 

https://mobile.twitt...910201012645888

 

7 for Austin? A 7? How is that even possible? I mean...I know WR intelligence is not as important as QB...But a 7? Good grief...

[NoSaint]

I have taken the wonderlic. I took it for a job, and scored rather well. This test doesn't test literacy. Trust me. Its more like a resoning and association test.

 

Right, but if you score single digits that's lower than guessing should average. Very possibly meaning you can't read.

 

On some level every written test will test literacy.

[WellDressed]

These are meaningless, Morris Claiborne got a 4 last year and now he's one of the best young corners in the league. Also we had the guy who had the highest score ever for a QB (Fitz) and look how he turned out.

 

Morris says, he'll keep climbin' and climbin' and climbin'.....

 

 

 

 

[3rdand12]

I have taken the wonderlic. I took it for a job, and scored rather well. This test doesn't test literacy. Trust me. Its more like a resoning and association test.

you spelled reasoning incorrectly,

I kid i kid.

Listen to Spiller . Who is a great kid and not dumb but he gets nervous. Man can he play football. just took more time to bring him along.

[Lurker]

They say it standardizes to iq atleast decently.

IMO, the only thing standardized about the Wonderlic is that players/posters who get a high score say it's important...and those that score low say it's not.

[NoSaint]

 

IMO, the only thing standardized about the Wonderlic is that players/posters who get a high score say it's important...and those that score low say it's not.

 

I think the accepted bar napkin conversion is

 

Score X 2 + 60

 

So 20 on the wonderlic matches up to about 100 on the iq. I'd assume the further out to the extremes you get the less accurate that gets - and obviously anyone doodling on the test instead of taking it would be a different story (though you could argue that's pretty low iq to do!).

 

Even if that holds true as a rule of thumb, no ones ever argued its the end all be all evaluation.

[BillsBytheBay]

you spelled reasoning incorrectly,

I kid i kid.

Listen to Spiller . Who is a great kid and not dumb but he gets nervous. Man can he play football. just took more time to bring him along.

I think the more reactionary the position is, the less it matters how well you know or learn the playbook.(within reason) remember it was a combination of Fred's great year, and spiller's lack of pass protection knowledge that kept him off the field.

[Jkgobills]

I found a sample Wonderlic Test online....took it using my mobile phone, while drinking my third beer, and scored a 24.....and my sample test only had 25 questions. These guys aren't that bright, but I guarantee they are all better football players than I ever was.

[BuffaloBill]

I think it's a big deal. to me, a low score is a good indicator as to someone who is more likely to make costly mental mistakes on the field.

 

This is more critical in read and run situations players are asked to manage today.

[Formerly Allan in MD]

Some guys did terrible. My favorite Robert Woods looks good. According to the score, Tavon Austin is illiterate. These scores probably don't mean as much for WRs as it does for QBs but its still fun to see how these guys do.

 

 

 

https://mobile.twitt...910201012645888

Patterson's not much better.

[benderbender]

Mario Manningham got a 6 and I remember all of those clamoring for us to sign him not too long ago. Marshawn Lynch scored 4 times that and can't stop getting into trouble. Not sure how smart it is to base all personnel decisions on the one score of one test.

[26CornerBlitz]

Peter King opines on the Wonderlic:

 

[NoSaint]

Mario Manningham got a 6 and I remember all of those clamoring for us to sign him not too long ago. Marshawn Lynch scored 4 times that and can't stop getting into trouble. Not sure how smart it is to base all personnel decisions on the one score of one test.

 

i dont think anyones ever advocated that seriously.

[BillsBytheBay]

they're probably right... not sure it has relevance in learning a playbook. maybe for a QB.

 

it doesn't seem to have much effect on decision making either. many low-scorers haven't got into a lick of trouble.. Gore... McKelvin... while guys who did a little better like Marshawn and Maurice Clarett were train wrecks.

 

those interviews must count 100x more than that test... at least.

I would agree, interviews and backround checks. I bet that DB from LSU ain't gonna get drafted.

[3rdand12]

I think the more reactionary the position is, the less it matters how well you know or learn the playbook.(within reason) remember it was a combination of Fred's great year, and spiller's lack of pass protection knowledge that kept him off the field.

I think you are correct but marrone /Hackett have a fast paced playbook and probably more wrinkles than Gailey had.

I also think that they will need smart guys on both sides of the ball.

relatively speaking

Edited April 19, 2013 by 3rdand12

[Dibs]

I agree, I just don't believe that you can measure someone's intelligence with a number out of 50.

 

I agree. You'd need at least a number out of 64.

 

 

 

If it helps, here is a link of a mock Wonderlic test.

 

http://www.proprofs....lic-sample-quiz

 

Is that serious? Is that really what a Wonderlic test is like?

 

Apart from the concept that I'd expect the average pre-teen to be able to score reasonably well on that simple test(the rough average simply guessing the answers would be 13)....

 

....how does having an extremely basic understanding of math, and having a general understanding of the meaning of words, relate to ones ability to be able to play football(or even relate to any form of intelligence)?

Edited April 20, 2013 by Dibs

[Numark]

....how does having an extremely basic understanding of math, and having a general understanding of the meaning of words, relate to ones ability to be able to play football

 

No one has been able to show it does. Which is interesting because it would be easy to do statistically ...since it is a test and is measurable. However anyone saying that for certain positions (ex: QB) it matters and for some it doesn't, they have no proof or evidence. Anyone saying it matters, they haven't shown any proof or evidence etc. Opinions are fine for the most part, but since we are talking about something that is measurable, opinions are sorta silly. Either this does or doesn't matter, and there is no proof.

 

Someone making the claim that this test is similar to another test (the only way to make such a claim is with very specific test) is speaking on an uninformed opinion. And someone making the claim this matters at all is speaking on an uninformed opinion.

 

 

Sorry this test bothers me because people make such a big deal out of it when there is nothing of substance that means anything about it. ALL these scores tell is how good the individual is at taking the wonderlic test. Sorry, fact.

 

 

if anyone could provide raw wonderlic scores and we as a community came up with what we wanted to see with them, I'd be glad to run some stats on them and see if this test means anything at all

Edited April 20, 2013 by Numark

[Dibs]

ALL these scores tell is how good the individual is at taking the wonderlic test. Sorry, fact.

 

I'd say it also could tell us how knowledgeable an individual is on the definitions of basic English words......combined with how knowledgeable they are with basic mathematics.

 

I think what the Wonderlic really tells us is whether an individual paid attention in junior high or not.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Dibs

[NoSaint]

 

 

I'd say it also could tell us how knowledgeable an individual is on the definitions of basic English words......combined with how knowledgeable they are with basic mathematics.

 

I think what the Wonderlic really tells us is whether an individual paid attention in junior high or not.

 

And as these are college students for at minimum 3 years.... Even if it doesn't directly tell you anything it does raise red flags that a guy might either A) blow off things you ask him to do if he doesn't think they are important, or B) have IQ issues that COULD be something worth noting. It's a tool in the investigation, not an answer

[Lurker]

I think what the Wonderlic really tells us is whether an individual paid attention in junior high or not.

Aside from the score itself, one thing a low Wonderlic would tell a team is how committed the player is to doing what's expected and working at their craft.

 

Every draft eligible player knows they're going to be tested--so the ones that don't even spend an hour getting familiar with the format, thinking about how to take the test, and in essence--blowing it off--tell you something about their attitudinal makeup and (lack of) maturity...

[papazoid]

got a chuckle out of this....

 

Would you rather be thoughtless and successful or intelligent and frustrated?

 

A recent article in the New Scientist addressed the never-ending ignorance-as-bliss debate with the following question: If being intelligent was an evolutionary advantage, "why aren't we all uniformly intelligent?" The obvious, unscientific answer: Probably for the same reasons we aren't uniformly good-looking. But is being smart always to your benefit? Are there instances when stupid works better?

 

Stupidity can increase efficiency, claims Mats Alvesson, professor of organization studies at Lund University in Sweden. In a Journal of Management Studies article titled "A Stupidity-Based Theory of Organisations" Alvesson and colleague André Spicer explain how what they call "functional stupidity" generally helped get things done. "Critical reflection and shrewdness" were net positives, but when too many clever individuals in an organization raised their hands to suggest alternative courses of action or to ask "disquieting questions about decisions and structures," work slowed.

 

The study's authors found that stupidity, on the other hand, seemed to have a unifying effect. It boosted productivity. People content in an atmosphere of functional stupidity came to consensus more easily, and with that consensus came greater roll-up-our-sleeves enthusiasm for concentrating on the job.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-benefits-of-being-stupid-at-work-190339721.html

[C.Biscuit97]

Everyone is a genius on a message board!!! Everyone on this board would definitely get at least a 40+ on the wonderlic.

 

And honestly, there are different levels of intelligence. A lot of great musicians were not scholars in school but do things with an instrument that you couldn't believe. Terry Bradshaw was known as a moron and has 4 SB rings. Football intelligence is much different than standarized testing.

 

That said, I would put more stock in the wonderlic at certain positions (QB, C, and possibly MLB or FS).

[San Jose Bills Fan]

got a chuckle out of this....

 

Would you rather be thoughtless and successful or intelligent and frustrated?

 

A recent article in the New Scientist addressed the never-ending ignorance-as-bliss debate with the following question: If being intelligent was an evolutionary advantage, "why aren't we all uniformly intelligent?" The obvious, unscientific answer: Probably for the same reasons we aren't uniformly good-looking. But is being smart always to your benefit? Are there instances when stupid works better?

 

Stupidity can increase efficiency, claims Mats Alvesson, professor of organization studies at Lund University in Sweden. In a Journal of Management Studies article titled "A Stupidity-Based Theory of Organisations" Alvesson and colleague André Spicer explain how what they call "functional stupidity" generally helped get things done. "Critical reflection and shrewdness" were net positives, but when too many clever individuals in an organization raised their hands to suggest alternative courses of action or to ask "disquieting questions about decisions and structures," work slowed.

 

The study's authors found that stupidity, on the other hand, seemed to have a unifying effect. It boosted productivity. People content in an atmosphere of functional stupidity came to consensus more easily, and with that consensus came greater roll-up-our-sleeves enthusiasm for concentrating on the job.

 

http://finance.yahoo...-190339721.html

 

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Doesn't surprised me to see a decent score from Woods. He always seemed like a relatively bright guy to me in interviews.

More importantly, how thick is his superior temporal sulcus?

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/155421-mckelvin-may-have-a-thin-superior-temporal-sulcus/page__hl__sulcus